Biotech Values

[iwfal]

EOLS and RVNC

In other words, EOLS declined to publish what they said they would, which is consistent with what I posited in #msg-173201637.

This is incorrect. My bad in thinking they didn't publish them in the new paper... they did, in fact, publish exactly the same curves that they published in 23Q3 (which were the ones you said they would not publish). I missed them in my initial review because they are, somewhat oddly, the last figures in the paper. (As I've noted repeatedly the industry standard for data in glabellar lines is very odd, and I wasn't careful enough in reviewing the paper) Regardless Figures 8 and 9 are the exact same figures as those published in the 23Q3 slide deck.

The one difference in the EOLS paper, as compared to the 23Q3 presentation, is the paper doesn't include the Sakura data in the figures. Otherwise the below figure, which is from the 23Q3 slide deck, is identical in a quick review to Figure 8 and 9 in the EOLS paper (FYI - Figure 8 is Investigator assessment, Figure 9 is Patient Assessment - but both are presented together in the 23Q3 EOL presentation which is shown below). And, for completeness, the corresponding Daxxy figures are in Figure 2 of the Sakura paper.

Notes:
a) I looked to see if they were playing with mITT to cheat. Yes and no. The mITT and ITT for 40 (extra strength) were the same. But for 20 mITT was 2 fewer patients than ITT.

b) The EOLS trial enrolled a meaningfully different population - as they note in the EOLS 23Q3 charts. The EOLS 40 group was 70.6 Percent Severe patients, the Sakura groups were 40 percent, or a little less, Severe. So... since the below is a graph of patients who had no or mild lines (i.e. its not a return to baseline graph - which would presumably be easier for a Severe population) its surprising EOLS 40 did so well.

c) The paper includes the dosing - 2x the dose in 1/2 the liquid. Ie 4x the concentration.

d) I have not had time to look at/for AE data




EOL Paper here